ArticleBMJ open2026
Stewarding scarce response capacity: an inductive qualitative interview study of emergency medical dispatchers' prioritising ambulance resources.
Article in BMJ open, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
5 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
objectiveThis study aimed to explore emergency medical dispatchers' (EMDs') experiences of prioritising patients and stewarding ambulance resources when system capacity was constrained.
designQualitative interview study using inductive qualitative content analysis.
settingEmergency medical communication centres (EMCCs) in Sweden, operated by the national emergency call provider and responsible for receiving 112 calls and dispatching ambulances.
participants13 purposively sampled EMDs with at least 1 year of professional experience. DATA ANALYSIS: Interviews were analysed inductively using qualitative content analysis (Elo and Kyngäs) through open coding, grouping into subcategories and abstraction into generic categories and one main category.
resultsDispatchers described prioritisation under scarcity as system work that simultaneously addressed individual patient acuity and population-level readiness. One main category captured this work: stewarding scarce response capacity. Three inter-related generic categories characterised stewardship: (1) prioritising by clinical urgency within geographic and operational constraints; (2) producing availability through anticipation, reassessment and queue governance in a 'virtual waiting room'; and (3) coordinating response through information infrastructures and interprofessional collaboration. Across categories, dispatchers described redistributing risk across patients and time, managing moral strain when delays could harm patients and using experience, reassessment and teamwork to avoid both under-response to urgent need and over-allocation that would leave areas without coverage.
conclusionsDispatch under scarcity is best understood as active stewardship of a safety-critical dispatch queue. Strengthening patient safety therefore requires organisational support for reassessment and escalation during prolonged waits, explicit governance of queue dynamics and geographic coverage trade-offs, safeguards for contextual judgement when automation is used and support for dispatchers exposed to morally difficult scarcity decisions.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.